Skeptical of climate change skeptics

Letters to the editor on two Q&A's on global warming that were published in the Oct. 24 opinion section

Reader weighs the sources

Are we to believe Bob Carter, whose doctorate is in paleontology, and S. Fred Singer, the soon-to-be nonagenarian (90- 99 years old) best known for his denial of the health risks of secondhand smoke who dismissed studies linking passive smoking and lung cancer as “junk science”?

Or, do we believe UCSD geochemist Dr. Jeff Severinghaus and geophysicist Dr. Tim Barnett, esteemed members of a world-renowned institution of higher learning, UCSD, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography? Acute critical thinking skills are not required for this decision.

Gayle Greenlee

San Diego

Can’t believe these skeptics

Thank you for interviewing two of our esteemed scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Jeff Severinghaus and Tim Barnett.

The rebut by Bob Carter states that the NIPCC Report is peer-reviewed. That is a hundred percent disingenuous. Having other scientists review something is not the same thing as the actual peer-review process

S. Fred Singer testified before Congress 20 years ago that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. I do not understand how the paper thinks “rent for hire” scientists give the editorial page credibility. We are not dealing with issues such as how we relate to gay people or abortion. Those issues are based on our personal views of the world. For any politician who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, they are jeopardizing the validity of their views on other matters. The U-T should not treat the issue of science as a “he said/she said” matter.

Let’s take the conservative answer to climate change, as former Secretary of State George Shultz and Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan’s economist say, impose a carbon tax, have the burning of fossil fuels pay their true costs to society, and let the free market go to work to solve the problem.

Mark Reynolds

Executive Director

Citizens Climate Lobby

Skeptics add

The media need to stop providing a forum for shills of the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change.

Leaked documents have thoroughly discredited both the Heartland Institute and the NIPCC, as well as revealing that Bob Carter receives a steady stream of money from Heartland. As for S. Fred Singer, he has been a paid consultant to many oil corporations and his research has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community. It is insulting to portray this group as a credible rebuttal to respected scientists.

Jeffrey Meyer

Poway

Skeptical of the computer models

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientists Jeff Severinghaus and Tim Barnett moved the goal posts. The IPCC didn’t just say that global warming was man-made, they said it was caused by CO2 and that they had a computer model that predicted future warming. As the scientists admit, that computer model was proved to be wildly wrong; however, they do have a new theory as to why they were wrong in the 1990s. Psst ... the heat is hiding in the ocean. Apparently, they didn’t have oceans in 1990 when they wrote their computer model.

Imagine you are walking into Del Mar Racetrack and some guy is hawking his tip sheet. He makes the claim that he has a computer model that can predict with 95 percent certainty who will win the race. After 20 years, you look at his results and find that he has been wildly wrong. Would you still buy a tip sheet from this guy?